Appeal No. 96-1753
Application 08/063,202
skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a
particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163
USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Further, in an obviousness
assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather
than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ
771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 1 first stands rejected as being unpatentable over
Moore and Ekdahl. Moore is directed to a dispenser for striped
viscous products. It discloses a container holding a first
viscous material 64 axially disposed therein and a second viscous
material 68 axially contacting the first viscous material in a
plurality of axial stripes. The container is topped by a spout
34 having a passage 36 through which the two viscous materials
flow simultaneously when a pumping piston 28 is operated. The
appellants have not disputed that with each operation of the
pumping piston, a controlled amount of the second material is
dispensed with respect to the amount of the first material.
According to claim 1, there must be a dispensing means “for
shaping” the first and second viscous materials as they are being
dispensed. While it could be argued that the narrowed exit 38 of
the spout in the Moore device “shapes” the materials issuing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007